SC questions UP Govt’s ordinance to take over Banke Bihari Temple

Questioning the tearing hurry in promulgating an ordinance to take over the management of Banke Bihari Temple, the Supreme Court on Monday said it would keep in abeyance its May 15 nod to Banke Bihari Temple Corridor at Vrindavan in Mathura as main stakeholders were not heard.

“Lord Krishna was the first mediator… Please try to mediate the matter,” a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said as it disapproved of the state government’s approach in moving the court in a “clandestine” manner.

It questioned the clandestine manner in which the Uttar Pradesh Government secured top court’s permission to use temple funds for the corridor development project and then promulgated the Banke Bihari Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 to transfer control and administration of the temple to the state.

The bench said it would appoint a committee headed by a retired high court or district judge to manage the affairs of the temple in the interest of lakhs of devotees besides including the main stakeholders in the managing committee.

“If the state wanted to carry out any development, what prevented it from doing it as per law? Whether land is private or not, it cannot be adjudicated by a court. State is coming in a clandestine manner, not allowing them to be heard. We don’t expect this. State should have informed them (temple authorities), in all fairness,” it said while hearing petitions filed by the Banke Bihari Temple management questioning the ordinance and the top court’s May 15 order.

As the Allahabad High Court was already hearing a PIL on the issue, it proposed that the temple management should challenge the ordinance before the high court. It suggested that until the validity of the ordinance was decided by the high court, it would constitute a committee headed by a retired high court judge to oversee the temple management and during this period temple rituals will continue to be performed by the family. Asking the UP Government to respond to its proposal, the bench listed it for a hearing Tuesday.